[WSIS CS-Plenary] AW: "the friends of the president" drafting group

Thu Jul 8 09:44:23 BST 2004

Thanks Bertrand,

the answer to your question here is a "double strategy" on behalf of the CS. 

To have a Non-Voting seat on the table has a number of benefits: 
* access to information
* establishment of personal contacts
* right to speak
* public visibility
It has risks, as we know and you have explained. We can be misused, sidelined and pushed into a corner to play the "useful idiot". So you need the right people with enough self-confidence and a clear position, able to maneuvre according to the circumstances. 

At the same time, this is true, CS has to have an own concept which has to have a certain distance to the governmental process.  More or less this is the same like the final phase of WSIS I, when CS decided a. to continue its communication with the IG Bureau but b. to draft an own document.  Wise and experienced governmental representatives understood this move and encouraged in November 2003 privately CS to continue with its own document. At the end of the day CS said what "should be done", while governments had been able to agree only on what "could be done". And this was seen as a succesful outcome, presented in the main plenary to heads of States and governments. 

More or less we have to move this to the next level and to position ourselves in a right strategic way, learning from our mistakes and achievements.

A precondition is indeed to get more claritiy on the role and function of CS in the general process, on what CS could and should do.

What I propose is to to agree on something what I would call a "MPC-Strategy". 

MPC stands for "Monitoring, Participating, Contributing". 

* Monitoring means the watchdog role, to control what happens with the governmental decisions. Will they disappear, broken, irgnored etc? We should raise the alarm bell if something goes wrong and we should write a bi-annual progress report etc.

* Participating means continuous involvment in official and non-official discussions and - as much as possible - negotiations. This includes membership in WGIG, Finance Taks Force, PrepCom2, Thematic meetings, informal groups etc. 

* Contributing means own initiatives and grass root actions. A lot is done around the globe by CS but most of this is invisible. We should start to to collect facts and data and to prepare a report for Tunis 2005 on concrete actions, undertaken by CS and groups close to CS, related to the implementation of the POA. This would produce also more recognition, visibility and legitimacy to call for more involvment in the governmental led decision making process.

Best wishes

wolfgang

________________________________

Von: Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE [mailto:lachapelle at openwsis.org]
Gesendet: Di 06.07.2004 12:31
An: Wolfgang Kleinwächter
Cc: plenary at wsis-cs.org
Betreff: Re: "the friends of the president" drafting group

Dear Wolfgang,

This is certainly worth exploring.

Two comments,though :
- voting rights do not mean much when decisions are taken by
consensus; the key questions are : what guarantee that CS
amendments are going to be duly taken into account ? and
what happens if, in the end, there is no agreement on the
final declaration ?
- what are the respective benefits of drafting among
separated constituencies vs united consituencies in the
Tokyo regional conference model ? one could envisage a
general joint drafting and a final polishing and reviewing
by governments only.

These alternatives must be carefully evaluated.

Bertrand

---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:28:24 +0200
>From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter <kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-
halle.de> 
>Subject: AW: [WSIS CS-Plenary] "the friends of the
president" drafting group 
>To: plenary at wsis-cs.org, plenary at wsis-cs.org
>
>Dear Betrand,
>
>thanks for the careful analysis. As I proposed in an
earlier message, one "trick" could be to propose a "non-
voting liaison". The ICANN system of collaboration and
multistakeholder approach is based on this liaison principle
(the GAC and the ALAC and other communities have non-voting
liaisons in official ICANN bodies without voting rights,
that means they do not share the responsiblity for decisions
and keep their right to articulate an individual and
dissending voice).
>
>So why not propose this officially to Karklins via the
Bureau?
>
>Best
>
>wolfgang
>
>a
>
>________________________________
>
>Von: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org im Auftrag von Bertrand de
LA CHAPELLE
>Gesendet: Mo 28.06.2004 13:49
>An: plenary at wsis-cs.org
>Betreff: [WSIS CS-Plenary] "the friends of the president"
drafting group
>
>
>
>Hi Rik,
>
>You rightly identified this notion of a "friends of the
>president group" as an important novation in the process. A.
>Samassekou tried something similar in the first phase but
>encountered serious difficulties in the PrepCom2, as
>governments (in particular GRULAC if I remember well)
>considered he had no mandate for doing so and that, as a
>result, they had not been able to contribute. So his whole
>document was trashed.
>
>Drawing lessons from that painful experience, Janis Karklins
>has made sure he is given an explicit mandate this time. But
>the question of how Civil society could participate in this
>process is not closed. Quite on the contrary.
>
>Indeed, during the joint Bureaus meeting, (to which I
>participated on behalf of the Internet Governance Caucus), I
>explicitely mentionned to President Karklins this
formulation
>about a group of "friends of the President".
>
>I also recalled the statement Ralf had read that very
morning
>in the official plenary, about providing appropriate
>mechanisms for civil society to effectively contribute "in a
>timely manner" to the drafting of whatever Political
>Declaration could be planned for Tunis and our willingness
to
>be involved. I also recalled that SG Utsumi a few minutes
>earlier in his response to a previous question, had wished
>the setting up of "appropriate communication channels" with
>civil society.
>
>To my surprise, Amb. Karklins went further than I expected,
>replying straightforwardly that he could envisage having
>civil society and private sector representatives in the
group
>of friends of the President.
>
>He may have been too bold : although no government made an
>explicit remarks at that time, I do not believe they would
>accept a joint, multi-stakeholder group to facilitate
>drafting.
>
>Nor am I sure this would be in the full interest of civil
>society to be merged in one single group. Maybe a separate,
>paralel, channel would be better. It has to be evaluated
>carefully - and quickly.
>
>But two things are certain in that context :
>- the earlier good input channels are established with the
>President, the more impact there can be on the architecture
>of the final Tunis Declaration itself;
>- Amb Karklins is visibly willing to find ways to involve
>civil society in more than mere symbolic ways, and this
>notion of "friends of the President" is to consider with
>great attention.
>
>The second phase is different from the first one : the way
>the final document is going to be drafted clearly more
>structured.
>
>A priority is therefore to define how we want to be part of
>that process and lobby to get support from friendly
>governments (as was the case with the EU to solve the
>Hammamet CS Crisis)
>
>For the rest, you are right to mention that the Summit
>process must take into account not only regional and
thematic
>events but also "WSIS-related Events". This leaves the
>possibility for events organized by civil society to push a
>given theme and force it somehow on the Agenda.
>
>This is just preliminary thoughts.
>
>Best
>
>
>Bertrand
>
>
>---- Original message ----
>>Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 11:01:45 -0400
>>From: Rik Panganiban <rikp at earthlink.net>
>>Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] process for drafting of
>documents
>>To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
>>
>>COMMENTARY ON THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL FOR A SUMMIT
DOCUMENT
>DRAFTING
>>PROCESS
>>
>>My understanding is that the President of the Prepcom Amb.
>Janis
>>Karklins has made quite an interesting proposal, which
>should be
>>accepted today.  He calls for a "group of friends of the
>President" in
>>consultation with regional groups to prepare a "document to
>serve as
>>the basis of negotiations" taking into account the outcomes
>of relevent
>>thematic, regional and other "WSIS-related" meetings.
>>
>>This proposal would represent a good amount of trust placed
>in the
>>President to facilitate the drafting of the main texts of
>the Summit
>>directly, as opposed to being done through a bureau or only
>through a
>>formal Prepcom process.  In Phase I, the Prepcom
President's
>own
>>drafting process was pre-empted by governments wishing to
>have more
>>direct control over the drafting.
>>
>>This also would be a evolving document that would be able
to
>>incorporate the results of various "WSIS-related"
meetings.
>This is in
>>contrast to the Phase I process, which did not allow for
the
>regional
>>consultations to be directly inputted into the draft summit
>texts.  In
>>addition, it leaves vague the notion of which meetings
>actually might
>>be included, since "WSIS-related" could be interpreted
quite
>broadly,
>>perhaps including meetings organized by the private sector,
>civil
>>society, academia, etc.
>>
>>Presumably the final documents will take the form of a
>political
>>declaration and an action-oriented document.
>>
>>For civil society, this represents perhaps a gain and
>perhaps a loss in
>>terms of our ability to monitor and contribute to the
>drafting process.
>>  A "friends of the chair" committee would presumably be
>closed to
>>observers.  However a text incorporating directly thematic,
>regional
>>and other WSIS-related meetings might be more open to civil
>society
>>input, since it gives us more opportunities to make
>contributions that
>>in the end might end up in the summit text.
>>
>>Rik Panganiban
>>===============================================
>>RIK PANGANIBAN       Communications Coordinator
>>
>>Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship
>>with the United Nations (CONGO)
>>web: http://www.ngocongo.org
>>email: rik.panganiban at ngocongo.org
>>mobile: (+1) 917-710-5524
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary